Consensual pvp???? Stay a While and Listen Why this is no fun.....

Separating the economy will create the exact same failing that the pre-tram UO economy had.

 

Also remember that SotA economy will be player driven so you can't even compare it to UO. Also to have a completely player driven economy you need a lot of players or else it will fail and therefore won't they be able to separate the PvP and PvE economy.

Personally I see no reason whatsoever to separate them anyhow. Equipment will not disappear in PvP nor PvE, they just get recycled on one way or another so no difference in the economy there. Equipment will have durability that will lover no matter if you fight PvP or PvE and after to much repair the it will be less expensive to buy a new item, so again the economy have the same balance for the PvP or PvE.

Now someone might say: "Yes but there will be more PvP fights and therefore more repair for them"
First of we do not know what kind of fighting there will be most of until a few month after the game is released. But more important is that tools also have durability so even if a crafter never leaves town he will need to repair his tools. I would not be surprised if things like lumber axes, pickaxes, tanning knives, sickles, etc etc is the things that will get the most repairs.

 

Which can be difficulty because, for many on both sides, there is no compromise at all regarding certain elements. In my case, for example, while I don't care if others fight and loot each other to their heart's content, if I can be looted in any way I will simply not play. No chance, ever, even if what is looted from me is limited to worthless items I can replace in minutes (my issue is with the act of looting, not with the loss or the death). Any player looting proposition that doesn't include a way for players to completely opt out of it will simply guarantee I will never engage in PvP.

 

That's something to take in consideration while trying to reach an understanding... even if it's not a moderate position. I must say i personally tend to favor the No-Loot position (even when is not what i prefer) just because it's "safer" regarding social stability and avoiding toxic playing*.

Silent Strider, Would you mind if i propose you two short questions? i'd love to know the answer from a No Loot = No PVP point of view:

• If it's a given you can always get your item back just by paying some money, we could assume you will lose gold instead of gear (assuming reasonable cost of ransom for average gear). Conceiving death by hands of a player as a gold loss, will that be tolerable? Probably you already thought about that, but i'd be delighted if you share
• Would you be ok with a system that allows you to reach a state where you can't be looted at all through questing and good deeds, with the restriction that if you loot somebody you'll lose that status? (it could be recovered atoning for your sins)

Sorry if i touched a delicate topic, i promise i do this questions in good faith (for science and testing and stuff! )

 

I see paying gold to not have items taken as looting still, so no, that is still not tolerable for me. In fact, the ransom system currently proposed by the devs, if implemented, will guarantee that I will never engage in PvP.

Yep. As long as that state of looting immunity could be achieved without ever engaging in PvP, that is acceptable.

A little anecdote about my play style, I've never looted anyone in a game. Ever. My issue with looting is psychological: I associate it too strongly with real world robbery. End result, even thinking about looting someone else is unpleasant for me. Thus, I truly doubt I will ever loot anyone; I would sincerely stop playing permanently rather than loot another player.

 

Those who enter PvP with Full Loot ARE consenting to it, and to those who do I wish you luck. That does not address those who don't want to EVER enter PvP, and THAT is the issue we are debating. Nobody is objecting to people who WANT to consent to F.L.O.W. PvP doing so. The objections come when someone suggests that F.L.O.W. should be the default. Such suggestions have been made again and again, and they are the SOLE source of all the anti-Full Loot posts.

Made me SNAP? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I'd snapped. I thought I was absent-mindedly replying to your post between homework assignments. Perhaps you might re-read the post, assuming a rational tone to my words. You might find new meaning in my words if you aren't panicking and trying to defend yourself from non-existent emotional assaults.

Now, as to the point you raise, I disagree. It's not a False Dilemma. On these forums, counting only early backers, we already have multiple posters who have stated unequivocally that they won't play if there is a CHANCE of them being forced into PvP. I have seen precisely zero offers from the PvP advocate community offering "No chance of you facing PvP whatsoever", other than the specious 'offer' of not playing at all.

This isn't a situation in which compromise is appropriate. That would disappoint both sides, producing a PvP so watered down and conditional that no PvP player would enjoy it, and a PvE experience so peppered with unwanted PvP that none of the PvE only advocates will play. In other words, a complete and utter failure of a game.

We need to find a system that allows each group to have what they want without interfering with each other. Fortunately, in a video game universe, that can happen. I think we should take advantage of that, instead of trying to force everyone into a blender.

 

failure what ???? trammel was the gamebreaking thing

uo economy was great before trammel destoyed it all shops in felucca ............

maybe uo had not so much players before trammel becauise internet was something more rare. but damn the economy worked flawless before trammel

for exemple the nice tc shop on drachenfels... let me look if i can find a vid. was one of the best shops the whole server bougfht stuff from

 

i just not want to live in a world of safty where pvp is consensual and without full loot for everyone . only way to get that is getting separated... or it will be a compromise no pk or most uo playersw cant live with. i coudnt pvp without loot is uninteresting , why not play an arena game like chivaery which is way more balanced and have better combat

separating them in different hesxes and separate the economy is the only way. games not have botter and no pve safe farm people ruin the economy. people who farm there mats in pvp full loot world would get no disadvantage. they have to get an advantage doing that really . people safe farmed in trammel dungeons and pks had less workd because they could be used in felucca aswell...


to separate the pve/ pvp loot player you will need a lot of players.

without that feature of full loot and the roleplaying abilitys it will give , 50 percent of the people not install the game .... is this the right way to get max people play the game ??
an istance is max 100 players i expect so i think there will be enough players to fill out 2 hexes on release. so why the 1 hex should not be open pvp full loot everywhere with different housing.

who want a house in a save zone . where he dont have to store mats to fraft armors/weapons for pvp



i mean what made uo great and mortal online aswell

-no map , it was an adventure you dont know where your path will lead to the desert in the jungle. may you find a dungeon ?? or will you met bandits ?
oh what wll be on other islands ? lets get a boat XD. especially when you played in the firstz days of atlantis omg i remember that was an adventure... no runes no nothing.
damn this game felt like a big edventure where you had to explore.
in mortal it was even better separated banks for every town.
every rock and location had his name in pvp because of no map.
mount clinton , saussage lake , 2 pillars, wolfspass. mount claymore ,broken water

so you can lead your troups in ts because you have to explain it and a scout have to make precise commands in which direction the enemys are north south or whatever there was only a compass in ultima there was a very small minimap. in times of teamspeak a map is a bad thing. guilds with more members can call backup way to easy and if there is fast travel in the game .... in ultima we used icq it tooked more time to call backup.

-everything could happen get looted , maybe find someone with a housedeed on him kill and loot him or someone who just transpored valuables to his house all luck.
this gambel made pvp fun and the roming and gave pvp a sense

-the economy the flag system , the statslost pks , the ways you could roleplay the game was so amazing.


cant beleave you guys played the same game then me ... maybe ultima online in the year 2010 with cyborgs ninjas and aliens with no loot lol .....

 

Why do you capitalize words so much?

 

I have to say that was almost incoherent when I tried to read through that. I used to hate in mmo's where you PVP and some guy spews at you in broken English about how you suck in some ways. I find that role play takes on different meanings for different people...I don't think PVE/PVP gives an advantage one way or the other...it just comes down to the people involved.

 

Of course it was, for those that think that PvP should have a death grip on the economy.

No it was not. Not even close. There is a list of major flaws, and that's before starting in on the PvP centric nature. - Demand-pull inflation (in case you are really interested and not just spouting off some rant about how great UO was)

Population has nothing to do with it. 200 players or 2,000,000 players when people fabricate items out of nothing there will always be inflation. (gathering and killing MOBs)

PvP gated fabrication in some situations, but in just as many situations that PvP gated it protected it. The fabrication still happened. Adding Trammel removed that gate. The inflation quickened. The fault here was not adding in the controls to prevent this.

Now add in the Cost-push inflation from limited housing and obsessive demands for rares and you will see inflation as a big neon sign.

So yes, the pre-UO economy was broken. Demand-pull inflation and Cost-push inflation were never factored in. Trammel quickened the pace of inflation. Not because of the removal of PvP but because of the increase in population.

I could go off on the PvP centric portion but that is irrelevant. What you should have been more interested in was why I say segregating the economy would recreate pre-Tram UO flaws. Then the PvP centric topic is relevant.

 

I did (in fact i read it many times before the first answer), but still irony submitted via forum gives ambiguity to statements; that's why i felt attacked. No problem, that's how we get to know each other I'll try to take this in consideration when reading you from now on.

I never asked for a change PVP trying to make it different than consensual (current model); in fact, i haven't mentioned it in any of my posts in this thread (and i dare to say not anywhere in this forum as a proposition, just as a personal preference not being able to fit in this game nor this community as a whole). I completely agree with you regarding non consensual PVP: it's a failed approach with more problems than advantages, and i honestly think defending that model is wasting time. My whole post (the post who started this "conversation") talks about the loot system, where i still think understanding can be reached, and Silent Strider answers made my belief more solid, and gave me clues about how to face it.

So my train of thought remains unchanged: regarding my post (in which i talk only about the loot system) the way you exposed it as a matter giving in to full loot or just have no loot at all is indeed a false dilemma, because there are many options beyond the ones you offered. I still think about it as a topic where understanding can be reached in an interesting, content related way, and even if the Devs don't see compromise in whatever we discuss, it's better to give it a try than to split the PVP community between full loot/no loot (as it has been suggested).

 

Since you cannot hear the mellifluous silken sound of my voice, I indicate where I am putting stressors in my diatribe. It's a halfhearted attempt to preclude such preconceptions as have assailed me even here, with conversational companions making faulty assumptions as to my intent or bearing.

 

@KuBaTRiZeS, It's not that I think you are suggesting forced FLOW PvP. It's that I think you are missing a vital understanding. There are many who see a game like this and say "Oh, awesome Online Gaming, there will be awesome PvP!" There are, however also many who say "Oh, dear Lord in Heaven I hope this game doesn't fill up with eight year old griefers forcing PvP on me no matter what gets programmed."

See, it's not that a partial loot compromise system would be harmful or bad, it's that any system that puts control in the hands of the program subsequently places it in the hands of that one amazingly clever and dedicated player who learns how to game the game. Unfortunately, that player has a Gamefaqs account, and a tendency to blab. Two weeks later, there is an online guide on how to make people flag for Full Loot without realizing it (or with minimized chances of being able to object).

It's useless to say the game won't allow this because it is, at it's core, a way of gimmicking the game into doing what it shouldn't. I've seen dozens of examples scattered across the MMO's I've played, places where the rules change, and noobs can be lured in and beaten to death. Despite the lack of challenge, or fairness, or substantial profit, there will always be some horrid little Troll who likes doing this. So I argue against automated systems deciding how PvP I am, or how lootable I am.

NOW, in the case of those who WANT to be lootable, I absolutely agree that you should reap what you sow. Let they who select being vulnerable to Full Loot be the only ones capable of claiming it from a victim. Assuming the devs ever bother to implement it, a system that allows gradations of loot might be interesting to those who want to be looted. So yeah, as a release sixty stretch goal, sure.

Ultimately though, the point I make is that there are some of us who want to participate in PvP, or who could be so persuaded, who will NOT do so if there is a 0.000001% chance of being looted. If they hear a story about a guy who knows a guy who saw it happen, they won't flag. Giving them a 0.00% chance of being looted of anything at ALL is mandatory to the task of getting them into PvP. Which is my ultimate goal. I want PvP to be fun and attractive to the widest variety of people, including me. So I argue in favor of player controlled settings that let people play without it, play with it just a tiny bit, be totally safe from looting, try just a little loot, and yes, ultimately go for FLOW, if that's what they want.

 

@MalakBrightpalm, now i do get your points. It's undeniable that having computerized rules for something is only some kind of challenge for people who enjoys (or is good at) overriding them to take advantage, or just to piss you off. That's something i didn't take in consideration, and now that you point it out, is one of the biggest issues while taking this approach and a genuine concern. I still remember one of my first days at UO, when i fell victim of the *Character is attacking you* macro... Am i the only one who fell for that? (Insert John Goodman in Big Lebowsky here). That's just an example of the hundreds of people ideas people had about how to game that game, as you said.

I also get your point of the risk some people are willing to take when approaching to PVP. Maybe we can say that "it's not about being able of reaching the status not to be looted, is about having certainty i will not be looted, and changing it is only my choice". I feel it as a priority, make sure PVP is an aspect of the game that doesn't drives people away by it's additional elements; no game feature should be designed in a way it discourages even more the people who are hesitant to try it.

I think this two traits you exposed are big flaws in the automated approach i didn't take in consideration, thank you very much for pointing them out! Nonetheless, since player controlled settings seems like a viable option (also more viable than another instance split between full loot - no loot players) there isn't much left for discussion; I prefer to spend my time thinking about an way to devise an automated system just because i prefer it that way... then, as you said, the devs will choose .

For example, I really wouldn't mind if the starting loot status of every player is unlootable by default instead of being ransomed for an item, and as you bask in the benefits of looting you become more and more lootable, up to a maximum determined by a series of factors (players never should be able to strip other players naked, imo). I'm think most players will loot whenever they can if they're given the option because it's an immediate benefit vs a long term benefit and usually the first is more attractive. I'll think about it deeply and then start a thread with a structured suggestion (i think is an interesting topic since death system is about to be implemented, and that's just the step stones to taking loot in the picture).

 

Many convey similar contextual flow without resorting to all-caps, just saying...

 

RG should put an ethical dilemma in the game: loot a player carrying a valuable medicine as a contraband, or a lot of people die from getting sick.

 

Two things.

First, if the only thing "looted" is the medicine given to take part in the contraband quest, then that is not looting. That is just taking the flag in a fully consensual game of capture the flag, merely under a different guise. No issues here at all.

Second, a player is a real person. NPCs are mere bundles of bits that we pretend are real. Whenever an "ethical dilemma" puts harming players on one side, and "harming" NPCs on the other, I see no dilemma at all; not harming a player always wins. All it does is pull back the curtain and drop me right out of whichever immersion the game was able to create (unless we both specifically consented to the fight and the consequences beforehand, for example by taking part in the contraband mission, but at that point the player is not being truly harmed, he is just taking part in a game he consented to).

 

If you want to take NPCs out of the equation, what if some PKer was going around stealing people's stuff, and another player asked you "this guy is really harassing all of us and ruining the game for us, can you get our stuff back?" And that guy who was stealing all the other players stuff was doing it consciously with the knowledge that he would be a target and people would be going after them. Would you help them out?

That's what a lot of looters (anti-PKers) do.

If you don't ever want to play a PKer, understood. Although personally, though I think PKers run amok can harm games and make them unfun, I think people ruin their gaming experience more when they take it too seriously and forget its not real life.

 

If there is any kind of player looting involved I'm not playing. At all. The rest does not matter.

Besides, I would never knowingly give a bully that don't care about ruining the game for other players anything he wants, so in the case you pointed I would never fight him. What I would be likely to do is suggest those players leave PvP mode, and offer them some replacement gear if they chose to do so (I wouldn't offer the replacement gear in case they decided to stay in PvP mode, though, partly because I think anyone that chooses to play in a mode where he can be looted deserves what is coming, and partly because I would see replacing gear that would likely be taken away again as futile).

And yeah, I can't fully separate obnoxious behavior in game and out of game. Part of why, back when I was playing WoW, I basically gave a choice to my guild: if any known ganker was added to my raid group, I (tank/healer) would leave. The fact the other tank, and a couple of the healers, also hated gankers helped make that a rule.